Battle v. Armontrout

Decision Date09 May 1990
Docket NumberNo. 89-1462,89-1462
Citation902 F.2d 701
PartiesThomas Henry BATTLE, Appellant, v. William ARMONTROUT, Warden of Missouri State Penitentiary, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Richard A. Ahrens, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Jared R. Cone, Jefferson City, Mo., for appellee.

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, Circuit Judges, and STROM, * District judge.

FAGG, Circuit Judge.

Thomas Henry Battle appeals from the denial of his petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988). Battle was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. State v. Battle, 661 S.W.2d 487 (Mo.1983) (en banc), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 993, 104 S.Ct. 2375, 80 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984). Battle filed a motion for postconviction relief under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 27.26 (repealed 1988), which the court denied after an evidentiary hearing. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the denial. Battle v. State, 745 S.W.2d 730 (Mo.Ct.App.1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 183, 102 L.Ed.2d 152 (1988).

Battle then filed his section 2254 petition, claiming fifteen separate grounds for relief and requesting appointment of counsel. The asserted grounds fall into five general categories: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) error in jury selection; (3) error in jury instruction; (4) introduction of improperly obtained confessions; and (5) improper application of the death sentence. The district court engaged in an exhaustive review of the records of the trial, appeal, and Rule 27.26 proceedings. In a lengthy and detailed memorandum opinion, the court examined each of the fifteen grounds Battle raised. The district court concluded the trial court committed no prejudicial error and denied Battle's petition and his motion for appointment of counsel. The district court granted a motion for reconsideration, but again denied the petition.

Battle's initial argument on appeal is that the district court committed error in denying his motion for appointment of counsel. A court may appoint counsel for any financially eligible person seeking relief under section 2254 when the interests of justice so require. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3006A(a)(2) (1988); 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254; R. 8(c) (1988). We review the court's denial of the request to appoint counsel under the abuse of discretion standard. Williams v. Missouri, 640 F.2d 140, 144 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 990, 101 S.Ct. 2328, 68 L.Ed.2d 849 (1981). Initially, the district court must decide whether the pro se litigant has presented a nonfrivolous claim and then whether the nature of the litigation will make the appointment of counsel of benefit to the litigant and the court. See Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322 (8th Cir.1986). Several factors should influence the court's decision, including the pro se litigant's ability to investigate facts and present claims and the complexity of the factual and legal issues. See id. at 1322-23.

Considering each of these factors, we conclude the district court abused its discretion in failing to appoint counsel. Battle has presented a nonfrivolous claim for relief. Battle's ability to investigate is seriously impaired by his incarceration. See Shields v. Jackson, 570 F.2d 284, 286 (8th Cir.1978) (per curiam) (indigent, incarcerated litigant not in position to investigate adequately). The factual and legal issues are sufficiently complex and numerous that appointment of counsel would benefit both Battle and the court by allowing counsel to develop Battle's arguments and focus the court's analysis. Of course, the complexity of the issues...

To continue reading

Request your trial
170 cases
  • Reese v. Fulcomer
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • October 15, 1991
    ...a court's denial of a petitioner's request that counsel be appointed to assist him in a habeas corpus proceeding. Battle v. Armontrout, 902 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir.1990) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2) (1988)). We apply a two-step analysis in our review of a district court's denial of a habe......
  • Holloway v. U.S.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • April 23, 1992
    ...abuse of discretion the denial of a discovery motion as well as a motion for the appointment of counsel. See, e.g., Battle v. Armontrout, 902 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir.1990) (appointment of counsel); Smith v. United States, 618 F.2d 507, 509 (8th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (discovery ...
  • Al Odah v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • October 20, 2004
    ...§ 2254 Cases 8. Again by analogy to state habeas proceedings, the Court looks to the Eighth Circuit's decision in Battle v. Armontrout, 902 F.2d 701 (8th Cir.1990). In that case, the Eighth Circuit considered several factors in determining whether a habeas petitioner was entitled to be repr......
  • Jones v. Shinn
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Arizona
    • August 20, 2021
    ...... legal issues involved in the case. Battle v. Armontrout , 902 F.2d 701, 702 (8th Cir. 1990). . . No. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT